Before I discovered this thread I had posted on another and have since got some useful feedback on why models that can't be cleaned may be rejected: http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=13299& amp;start=0&
It would appear that the reason is primarily to avoid customer complaints due to retained powder rather than to try and re-use every last bit of material.

The saving I can achieve by making a 1/200 scale model varies widely but I'm guessing that it is typically 25% to 33%, maybe not a lot in absolute terms compared to the costs of printing in other materials but significant in relative terms. The largest saving I have achieved is 80%, but that was exceptional. As well as reducing the cost making models hollow has the advantage of making them lighter which is of practical benefit when they are mounted on tall flight stands. EG (sorry, these models aren't 3D prints, they're OOP CLIX models for Crimson Skies):

While I rarely repeat Shapeways official rules, they will charge you full price for any captive material, ie material that can't be removed. I can't see why such a rule is necessary, but you have to figure out price somehow and volume is as good as any to keep everything simple. In your case I might recommend making your airplanes solid, based on the size the price won't change much and it would solve such issues.

Shapeways doesn't charge for trapped material. If you have an item that is hollow, but with no hole at all connecting it to the outside shell, the software automatically removes internal geometry. This was implemented years ago to prevent double charging for overlapping geometry.

I learned a long time ago the wisest thing I can do is be on my own side, be an advocate for myself and others like me. -Maya Angelou
michael@shapeways.com Community Advocate

This is why I try not to do what I just did, because it just makes me look stupid. So maybe you can explain to us designers why it's so important to have such a large hole if Shapeways isn't concerned about trapped material. Wouldn't a 1mm hole effectively be sealed in WSF, without the need for fusing the internal material, and solve the whole overlapping geometry issue?

My take on this is;
1. You are charged for the printed material by volume.
2, The support powder for WSF is the same powder that is used to make the model
3. Unused powder is recovered.
4. Shapeways are a business, their whole point of existance is to make money.
5, It is not good business practice to give away money.

Why not arguee that is takes less man hours to empty a solid object so that we all get a cheaper printed build?

WSF is its own support material and so anything reclaimed from a hollow model can be reused. This means that Shapeways has an interest in cleaning our models when the unfused volume is significant, for small models the key concerns appears to be avoiding loose powder.

It might be a difficult call for an inspector to make:
- This model is small, the escape/topology hole must be small enough to ensure it is sealed.
- This model is large, it must have adequate cleaning vents.

An additional complication might be caused by the weight of unfused powder causing structural failure in some cases.

Personally I would like a 'self sealing' small model option for hollow strong flexible materials, just not sure how Shapeways could specify it.

This is why I try not to do what I just did, because it just makes me look stupid. So maybe you can explain to us designers why it's so important to have such a large hole if Shapeways isn't concerned about trapped material. Wouldn't a 1mm hole effectively be sealed in WSF, without the need for fusing the internal material, and solve the whole overlapping geometry issue?

No need to feel stupid. There is a lot to learn, and many confusing rules. Shapeways is learning as we are. Not only the demands of the community, and the market, but also the limitations of the machines and processes. I've been here for years, and I still had a model rejected in my last order.

Currently trapped material is allowed in FD, FUD, and at least transparent detail, as these materials can visually benefit from having trapped build material in their translucent print. I used to offer a cube with messages inside that could be viewed when you held the cube up to a light.

The only reasons I'm seeing for allowing trapped WSF is to make the print less expensive. To try to counter this, there is a density discount for WSF prints. For models that are greater than 10% dense (material volume divided by bounding box volume), after the first 20cm3, the remaining volume is calculated with a 50% discount. We try to offer a finished product to customers, and having trapped material (that has no purpose to the product) or products that leak powder, is not a finished product. There is also the point that the left over powder can be reused, but that is not as much of a driving point as the powder isn't 100% reusable. The unused material is still effected by the processes of printing.

So what you can do to save some $ on your prints, is put multiple pieces in one file. For smaller items it is recommended to either join them with sprues or to build a cage to hold them together so they aren't loose in the build.

[Updated on: Wed, 13 March 2013 17:19 UTC]

I learned a long time ago the wisest thing I can do is be on my own side, be an advocate for myself and others like me. -Maya Angelou
michael@shapeways.com Community Advocate

another customer order was canceled today.
-------
Crown Ring (US Size 12) in Silver Glossy
Reason: Thin walls
Additional information: 0,2 mm
0,2 mm will be gone after polishing
-------
The design rule says: "Min Embossed Detail: 0.3mm (Regular & Glossy)"
In the screenshot the support provided you can see that it is 2.83 mm. I would round this to 3 mm not to 2 mm.
This ordere was canceled cause an embossed detail was 0.017 mm too thin?

Most of all I dislike that customer orders get cancelled without the chance to fix the issue. This customers are mostly lost and they don't buy again.
Guess this was suggested before, but it should really be a feature that allows the designer to send a new model within 24 hours, otherwise it might be cancelled.
With the "personalize" technique, there is already a similar message and upload feature implemented which I suppose could be enhanced.

(...)
So here's a prime example of a rejection for a phantom issue. Someone took a screen shot of my model and pasted 0.25 mm onto it in several places with no indication of what or where it is being measured at. I shelled this model at 0.32 mm, I also have a print of this model done previously.

Funny, but not true.

That's netfabb Studio, wall thickness measuring.
The indicators are the blue dots right behind the values.

The design rule says: "Min Embossed Detail: 0.3mm (Regular & Glossy)"
In the screenshot the support provided you can see that it is 2.83 mm. I would round this to 3 mm not to 2 mm.
This ordere was canceled cause an embossed detail was 0.017 mm too thin?

Most of all I dislike that customer orders get cancelled without the chance to fix the issue. This customers are mostly lost and they don't buy again.
Guess this was suggested before, but it should really be a feature that allows the designer to send a new model within 24 hours, otherwise it might be cancelled.
With the "personalize" technique, there is already a similar message and upload feature implemented which I suppose could be enhanced.

Michael

To your first part, the line is .3mm. Even .299 would fail.
To your second part, I'll make sure it's brought up in discussion again.

I learned a long time ago the wisest thing I can do is be on my own side, be an advocate for myself and others like me. -Maya Angelou
michael@shapeways.com Community Advocate

I'm glad I am not alone. I have a part which I have successfully printed over 40 copies in FUD over the last year or so which has now been rejected in my last batch file which contained several copies to minimise costs. To be fair it also contained a test design which did have valid rejection issues.

The item concerned has a 1/16" square shaft about 20mm long which has a fine hole down the centre. The item is not sold directly as I clean out the hole to take a steel pin for both strength and provide a point - it is a height gauge which I sell on my own website (see here). The rejection image showed the wall between the shaft edge and the hole was too thin. I suppose it technically it is but I've printed 40+ without it ever being a problem.

My big dilemma is I can't change the shaft dimensions and there is no way I could drill the hole out if it were solid. As it stands I will probably have to redesign the whole thing to include a separately manufactured metal square rod which will substantially change my cost basis and prices.

As noted by others why can't the fact that a model has successfully printed before allow it to proceed. Unfortunately this time it was a seemingly new model containing several copies of previously successful parts. Otherwise at least allow the designer to add an appropriate comment to that effect.

I'm not familiar with the output of Netfab. But there were small areas under there that I would classify as detail as they were about 0.3mm square and 0.23mm thick. Easily fixed but not obvious, and this particular model had been successfully printed before the rejection.

So it happened again. Someone discovered my store, got all excited about my designs, ordered a whole bunch of stuff, several of which have been there since the dawn of time (Shapeways Beta) and received a whole bunch of rejection messages. All of the items had been previously printed several dozen times, but that doesn't seem to matter. Shapeways seems to be relying exclusively on NetFab instead of their own brains. Oh look! There's a 4mm long encased feature that isn't a full 1mm in diameter! Reject! Reject!

this really sucks. Even if you've made a testprint, you can not make sure that it will be printed for customers again. This rejections are killing all the fun.
I can't imagine that it is cost-efficient for shapeways to check a design every time it gets printed. A model that was printed hundred times will be checked same as a model that was never printed before!? Whay not flag it as "printed before" and skip all tests on it. Of course it should loose the "printed before" state, the first time it causes trouble during the print process. I would pay gladly more for printing generally to prevent that customer orders get canceled.

I would pay good money, say $20-$40 to put a model through a full validation and NEVER have to worry about it again. As it stands I don't dare take out magazine ads, send models to bloggers or other professional reviewers, or anything else that takes time and money for fear that Shapeways will take all my work and throw it out the window as soon as somebody orders it, regardless of how many times I test print it. I have no idea how some people are making their living doing this.

Is there a standard time frame for alerting us of rejections? I have had everywhere between next day to up to five days before my order is cancelled and I am notified that my files are not in production. I think it would be really helpful if we were able to expect notification within a shorter time period so we can attempt to rectify the situation and still be able to meet our own deadlines.

Hi, I have the same problem, was directed to repost here to underline the seriousness of this issue.

Quote:

About an hour ago, I logged in to check the status of my pending sales, only to find that eight of them had simply disappeared from my sales page. On a whim, I decided to download my sales summary document from the shop overview page, and found that seven of them - for two different models, both of which have been printed successfully previously - have been marked as rejected.

The fact that this occurred, and that I did not receive any notification of it happening greatly concerns me. What's worse, I don't know if Shapeways sent the usual "your model could not be printed" email to whoever ordered them. The idea that Shapeways would communicate this to an artist's customers without informing said artist so that he or she could fix whatever is wrong does not sit well with me at all.

Is there a standard time frame for alerting us of rejections? I have had everywhere between next day to up to five days before my order is cancelled and I am notified that my files are not in production. I think it would be really helpful if we were able to expect notification within a shorter time period so we can attempt to rectify the situation and still be able to meet our own deadlines.

It all depends at what step the item fails. The file is manually checked in the first few days. When it's sent to production, it can fail while printing, or, depending on the material, when being removed from the print tray. After that, the prints have to be cleaned, and in some cases finished. Some items are printed at Shapeways, but some still have to be shipped to Shapeways, where they are checked, packaged with your other pieces, and sent to you. So a rejection could happen a day before it's supposed to ship if it arrives at the factory broken.

I learned a long time ago the wisest thing I can do is be on my own side, be an advocate for myself and others like me. -Maya Angelou
michael@shapeways.com Community Advocate

Again a customer order was rejected cause of an issue which is (as far as I know) not part of the design rules!
And again I had no chance to "fix" it before the order was canceled.
------------
Snake Ring (Size US 9) in Silver Glossy
Reason: Can not be cleaned
Additional information: will bend
will bend. Has to be more connected.
-----------

This is so profound that it appears to be sabotage to me. Compared to the masses there are only a handful of designers in the world highly familiar with the use of 3D design software as it pertains to 3D printing. Consequently, it would be very easy to perturb this small group so much that they simply move on. If I were Shapeways I would have everyone drop what they are doing and work to come up with a solution to this ongoing problem.

Also, I hate to say it, but in connection with these rejections is making people ask for their money back. NOT GOOD! I don't know how it is in Holland, but I know I myself was highly perturbed by this! It causes people to think things along with the being upset about the rejection. I haven't looked lately, but I have well over $100 that has been sitting in Shapeways' bank account and not mine for well over a month. And yes I know why Shapeways does it that way. And no, I don't need my money back, if I did I would have asked for it back, I'm simply telling you people don't like that when it is in connection with a rejection. It will cause them to think all kinds of negative things in conjunction with the rejection.

Why can't Shapeways simply tell everyone that a new item is in research and development and what is involved with the development? And then once the item has been printed successfully 25 times it would then attain a full production status with no restrictions.

Another thing Shapeways should be doing is sponsoring designers. Wherein, Shapeways would help with R&D of new products, photography and marketing. One idea might be to print a number of items of select products using unused space in the printers to have on hand an inventory. This would allow for more optimized shipping times!

Also, price wise, Shapeways needs to decide whether they are a retailer working for itself or a wholesaler working for the designers who are the retailers. And shouldn't there at least be more robust marketing research available?

Have there been any attempts to develop a relationship with any of major retailers? Wouldn't it be awesome if Shapeways shops could directly connect to Amazon or eBay?

I've been reading the forum since the very beginning. I know everyone here. It's only recently that I have started participating. I'm on Shapeways' side and I'm rooting for Shapeways to succeed! So lets make a better future!

great posting. I really agree that customer-orders shouldn't be canceled this way. Also a cooperation with companys like ebay, amazon, etsy or dawanda would be a great benefit. I'm always astonished that shapeways is not doing much conventional advertisement like similar companys. Shapeways relies to the community and their personal marketing power in the social network. Beeing part of such a strong community makes you feel that you can actual change things. It's easy to forget that shapeways is a company with a management so it's up to them how to run the business.
I like to think that there is always a way to communicate and that feedback might help to improve weak procedures.

I wouldn't be rich, but I could turn this into a nice side income stream IF I dared spend the money to advertise my products in related magazines, send items to bloggers and product reviewers, and other things that cost money but bring in customers. But I don't dare because it could be the first, it could be the fiftieth customer and then wham - my product is shut down due to someone not liking what they see in Netfab. And then all my advert money is wasted at best, and noone will ever look at my products again at worst.

Yeah, we'll just have sit back see what management does this year. I hope they keep in mind that when it comes to online related businesses they can go from thriving community to ghost town overnight. Case in point, Myspace! Hopefully they stop and take a good look at the core foundations stones (the designers) and make sure everything is sound in this area. Are the designers being fairly compensated for their innovation? Yes or no? Is the competition doing a better job at providing this compensation? Are the designers happy; yes or no?

Maybe Shapeways should replace the word beta next to their logo. At least until the New York facility is completed.

This is the one area where Shapeways really, soundly, and unfortunately falls flat, on its face, hard. The prices are good, the interface - while occasionally buggy - is easy enough to use, and the customer service is friendly and helpful. There's just so much internal confusion and turmoil that nothing seems to get done in a timely manner, if at all. We've been promised a 'successfully printed' flag, which I have yet to wrest a straight answer out of the forums on whether or not it's actually been implemented (internally) or if its even still 'in the works'. And if it IS 'in the works', it has been for many months now. I simply don't see how it can take that much time to implement. Slap a sticky note on a USB drive if you have to, there are ways to make it happen, I'm sure. There is zero accountability or reasoning to rejections of models - one person will inspect a model and approve it, and the next day his co-worker will reject it. There seems to be very little or no communication within the different Shapeways teams and between Shapeways and the various printers it contracts to. One would think that if Jim comes in to work today and approves a model, tomorrow Josh could receive that same model, see that Jim approved it, and let it through. There needs to be communication and explanation, not just internally, but to us, the sellers, as well. If one of my models is approved once, but even though they made it work, it was troublesome to print and they make a mental note to reject it next time, you have no idea how happy I would be to have that information relayed to me so I can fix those problems before I make it public, people try to buy it, and I make an ass of both myself and Shapeways.

In summary, Shapeways has a lot of issues to work out. Here at the storefront, things are generally fine. The website can be buggy and we all know my issues with the UPS situation, but generally it's all good. Internally though, I think Shapeways has a LOT of work to do, establishing a line of communication between the sellers, the customers, Shapeways service, and most importantly, the folks on the factory floor making these things happen. Consistency and communication need a very serious overhaul, very, very badly.

<snip>
In summary, Shapeways has a lot of issues to work out. Here at the storefront, things are generally fine. The website can be buggy and we all know my issues with the UPS situation, but generally it's all good. Internally though, I think Shapeways has a LOT of work to do, establishing a line of communication between the sellers, the customers, Shapeways service, and most importantly, the folks on the factory floor making these things happen. Consistency and communication need a very serious overhaul, very, very badly.

I don't completely agree with PeregrineStudios on this although I and (more importantly) purchasers of my models, have been burnt by inconsistent pre-preint QA.

I've been involved with helping companies migrate from an 'evolved' process to a 'rigourously engineered' one and I know that it:
- Is very expensive
- Is time consuming
- Negatively impacts on the core business whilst the change is happening
- May transform staff from thinking people into 'wetware' robots' (who no longer bother to think)

I don't want to pay for Shapeways to do this.
It probably won't be as friendly a company at the end of it, maybe more like Canadian UPS

A complicating issue you have to deal with is what happens in the Christmas rush?
(Note, this is NOT specific to Shapeways, it's a more general issue.)
- The website guarantees Christmas delivery if you order by X
- Many orders are placed at the last minute
- QA gets rushed (in Shapeways case this might result in borderline models being marked OK)
- After the rush QA settles down again...

Shapeways need to get better and a bit more joined up but I'm not expecting perfection, I'd far rather deal with people committed to doing their job well than an anonymous business process.

If this hasn't the potential if losing sales, I would find this very funny.

Quote:

The following models have been rejected by our production team:

K6 - 7mm (1:43.5) Scale in Frosted Ultra Detail
Reason: Bad file
Additional information: The file contains shells which aren't attached correctly, printing it will result in them not being attached and lost in the printer. For more information about the design specifications for this material please visit: http://www.shapeways.com/materials/frosted-detail-design-gui delines

Why should this be funny - it is a 7 part model, none of the parts are attached to each other, all of the parts meet the requirement for the minimum size - but it is not funny. IMO this rejection is as a result of an operator not understanding the basics of their job, so intead of a happy customer, there are now messages and emails flying about to get the situation resolved.

Paul

p.s. my pendant from earlier in this thread is now printable with no changes - nothing to do with silver flow, just a few issues buffing up the silver due to the thin wires.

A month ago, Shapeways cancelled multiple orders and told me my model could not be printed. I went through multiple slow, painful rounds of iteration - during which I specifically requested they tell me if there was something wrong with it - until they sent me a test print. Upon receiving my test print, I put my model back on sale. Now they have declared it unprintable again.

Last night, I received the following email:

Quote:

Thank you for writing.
I'm really sorry to hear that your model got rejected after several months of prototyping.

I checked both rejected models and spotted this rejection reason:
"Reason: We have tried printing this part several times, there is too much pressure on the protuding parts and it breaks everytime. It needs more support to be printable."
"Reason: Within tolerance, however, we have tried printing this part and it breaks every time. There is just too much leverage on thin parts to successfully print it. Also, next to impossible to ship without breaking."

In short this means that we have had several attempts of printing the model but according to our production team there is only a 1 out of 3 chance that it will survive the process.
After this we are having difficulties making sure it will be shipped without breaking it.
Right now the main difficulties are the protruding parts like the beard and the horns which break really easily.

The 2 new orders have not been made by Shapeways and are in fact 2 new customers.

Again our sincere apologies for the inconvenience and we hope you will be able to make these parts a bit thicker to ensure that the parts will be printable and able to be shipped without breaking them.
I however do agree that we should have communicated this earlier to let you know that we were having issues printing this model without breaking it.

So in short, they have apologetically fucked me over, and have provided very little information about how to "fix" the model. Meanwhile, its two months since I initially put the model up, I've wasted a lot ot time and money on test prints, and everyone who wanted the model (aside from the three who got theirs first) is SOL.

I'm honestly not sure whether I should even keep trying at this point. Shapeways offers some nice prints, but if they are going to do this again, I'd rather get someone with a consumer-grade extrusion printer - who at least won't screw me - to produce an inferior quality product.

How bout this. How about a research and development phase for products. Rather than trying to get the machines to perfectly match what the designers are instructing them to do with their CAD/CAM instructions, why not just make it clear to everyone what's to be expected until the ultimate design goal is finally achieved?

For example. Lets say an item prints successfully 5 times and then a problem occurs. Well, why not just document the problem with a description and maybe even photographs and then put that information right on the pertinent shop page? Make it so customers are informed of what may happen and that returns are not allowed for the product in its research and development stage.

Then, once a product has been printed numerous times successfully it can then be bumped up in status where it can have the benefit of allowing returns if not 100% satisfied. Yet, should it ever be found to have a problem, it would simply be demoted back down to research and development status.

That's how to deal with the customer aspect, but what about the designers? How do we keep everyone happy, including Shapeways employees, throughout the entire process? Simple, we just let everyone know what the machines will do and not do. A design rule checker that spots an error would simply inform the designer that for reasons A, B and C the machine will not print correctly and consequently there will be no returns or money back guarantee. The design would be put into research and development status. So if a designer for example wanted to order a box of polyamide dust that is supposed to be their 3D printed design, then so be it, just give them whatever comes out of the machine.

You could even have it set up where designers could pay a premium to have their model checked for errors. Or, if they felt confident with the design they could wave the check and pay for whatever came out of the machine regardless of what the machine turned out.

Design rule checkers would still check designs coming in, so as to hopefully spot anything that could compromise other designs, but they would only contact the designer if the a design would be suspected of possibly contaminating other orders, in which case the design would be given a possible contamination status and not printable until revised.

It would seem to me that a business model something like this would be a lot less stressful for everyone. The work load on the design rule checkers would be drastically reduced and therefore they could spend more time investigating each order that was specifically paid to have detailed checking. The designers would be happy because they would would be operating the machines almost as if they owned the machines and were operating the machines themselves. They would be free to push the envelope if they wanted and most importantly, they'd only rarely be confronted because they would only be shown their design flaws when they either paid for it or it could possibly corrupt other orders.

Keep in mind too that under the current system design checkers can be spending time on checking designs that aren't even REAL! I know it's a stretch, but it is entirely possible that a competitor or even multiple competitors could be uploading fake purposely erroneous designs just to throw a monkey wrench into Shapeways' core operating system. However, under a business model like I am proposing competitors wouldn't be able to cause artificial disruptions.

Finally, try to envision the future. Look at how things are developing. As the whole 3D printing movement exponentially gains more and more momentum we are going to see more people who know nothing about 3D modeling and design in how it intimately relates to 3D printing. Currently, I feel by taking in a sampling of the forums, that Shapeways is mostly getting highly talented designers who know quite a bit about what they are doing as it relates to 3D printing, however, what about when the masses start getting involved. Even though nerves are being tweaked between the design rule checkers and the designers we are all competent enough to keep under control enough to keep working it out as can be seen in this thread, though discussions have been a little heated we are still moving forward to a degree, yet the masses aren't going to be so understanding.

Changes are most definitely going to be made, but what kind of changes? Lets see!

Messed up formatting of the forum messed my ability to read your lengthy reply.
(and your reply does not show in the stuff below as I am trying to respond so I do hope it is good stuff that helps Shapeways and their partners understand that clear, open, language barrier free communitcation (as I've said all along) can help us all stop getting models rejected on the first order let alone to 20th.

UB, I do take it that you have 1st hand experience of order rejections whether the rejecton be true or false?

If I had to pay for my models to be checked I would stop using Shapeways.

3D modelling is a hobby for me, my models are available to others so I can give something back to the community.
I am prepared to put up with the occasional model rejection because an earlier QA had passed it in error.
I donate my 'profits' to a local charity.

Remember that shapeways does not print everything in-house (yet ?), so at least for some materials they are at the mercy
of their production partners themselves. (Who may even be reluctant to communicate that they needed several tries to print
a particular order, lest they be considered too clumsy ?)
And I assume they are already considering increased feedback between their own production and service teams - but
creating a feedback mechanism that allows the machine operators to log how many "hidden" reprints were necessary
(and for what reason) may be a non-trivial task when it must also not increase the workload, i.e. not reduce throughput.

Collaborative tinkering between the designer, checkers and print operators - which is what your R&D phase boils down to -
does not seem to fit in too well with the speed and efficiency requirements of shapeways' business model (as I understand it).
So for truely marginal models you may still be better off with some traditional, local rapid prototyping business, unless your
model is so spectacular or raises such fundamental questions that the shapeways crew can justify putting in extra hours to
make it work.

That said, i still assume and hope that most of the recent rash of rejections is just due to the inexperience of new hires and/or
increased workload (less time per part for checking) - unfortunately it is quite easy in netfabb (and probably competing systems as well)
to pick a wrong point while measuring.

And finally, the grand disclaimer - as I do not have a shop, I hardly know what I am talking about. (And as English is not my
first language, I may not even be putting it in the right words)

Yep! Plenty of rejections, Paul. I argued against every one of them too! None that had already been printed though, that's got to be even more aggravating!

I don't know how helpful my reply is to Shapeways, I'm just trying to brainstorm up some possible solutions. I'd like to see a solution developed for this ongoing problem since I'm interested in doing further development with some of the designs I have up such as photography and advertising and so forth.

Good point Nick. Scratch that then, can't have a solution that causes more problems in another area. As a side, I think it's wonderful that you're donating to charity with your hobby.

Mk, you're doing great with English. I would have never known. Then again, I taught myself how to read and write in English so I'm not that great at it myself and I don't really know for certain if you're doing great with English. Looks good to me though!

As a designer it would be useful to be able to flag an order as a test print, this might have two effects:

1) Pre-print QA might take more care to check the model and could send a response back showing where the model is only just within material specs.

2) So long as the model is safe to print it should be printed even if the result might be imperfect, this would allow the designer to see if it looked right even if some parts were not quite thick enough for general sale.

These changes could save time (money) for both Shapeways and the designers in the long term by avoiding rejections of previously printed models that had been passed in error.